Yahtzee reviews

[Pidesco]

His Bioshock review was completely spot on, despite the fact that he was being overly critical.

[RPGmasterBoo]

With anything related to FPS or action adventure/sandbox games he's usually spot on.

[Maria Caliban]

I just like the fact he's willing to call games such pieces of ****. Even if its just a gimmick, it's still refreshing in this age of sycophantic game reviewers.

 

I like accurate and thoughtful. Someone who insults games just to please his boss (and you know the Escapist's biggest draw right now is Yatzee) is no more useful to me than reviewers who praise games just to please their boss.

[Calax]

I just like the fact he's willing to call games such pieces of ****. Even if its just a gimmick, it's still refreshing in this age of sycophantic game reviewers.

 

I like accurate and thoughtful. Someone who insults games just to please his boss (and you know the Escapist's biggest draw right now is Yatzee) is no more useful to me than reviewers who praise games just to please their boss.

I think he needs to do more reviews of games he actually likes. Those tend to turn out the best because he actually got into them enough to make the review actually seem like more than just random bile thrown at obvious flaws found within 5 minutes of play.

[Spider]

I don't know, I thought the review of Wet was hilarious, but the ones of Dragon Age and Batman were kinda dull.

[Purkake]

Perhaps this soothing image will help ease the tension?

 

[Oner]

Read some..Torchlight comments..brain...meeeeeeltiiiiiiing!

[Purkake]

Ahh, that is rookie mistake nr. 1 - Never, under any circumstances, read any comments under a streaming online video.

[Oner]

*incomprehensible mumbling*

[Slowtrain]

I like accurate and thoughtful. Someone who insults games just to please his boss (and you know the Escapist's biggest draw right now is Yatzee) is no more useful to me than reviewers who praise games just to please their boss.

 

 

A valid point.

 

For me, I don't really think of game reviews as being "useful" to me anymore. There was a time, back when CGW was in is heyday, that game reviewers actually did bring knowledge and thoughtfulness to the table. While reviews are always somewhat subjective there once was considerably more authority behind them. Nowadays, reviews seem mostly to be little more than extensions of the publishers PR campaign, especially for major titles.

 

I just simply enjoy the fact that Croshaw has enough of an identity as a reviewer that he can say what he want about the games he plays. I don't think I'd ever buy or not buy a game based on what he says about it though. Mostly I like listening to his reviews of games I've already played.

[Oner]

I just simply enjoy the fact that Croshaw has enough of an identity as a reviewer that he can say what he want about the games he plays. I don't think I'd ever buy or not buy a game based on what he says about it though. Mostly I like listening to his reviews of games I've already played.

He doesn't say what he wants to, the fans don't "allow" him to like a game, it's a big no-no. If the fandumb manifests as mailbox spam or harassment from the boss, I've no idea.

[RPGmasterBoo]

For me, I don't really think of game reviews as being "useful" to me anymore. There was a time, back when CGW was in is heyday, that game reviewers actually did bring knowledge and thoughtfulness to the table. While reviews are always somewhat subjective there once was considerably more authority behind them. Nowadays, reviews seem mostly to be little more than extensions of the publishers PR campaign, especially for major titles.

 

I agree, and I've said so many times. Obviously it makes perfect sense, not just in games but in just about everything. Game sites live off publisher adds, get games earlier, are invited to preview events etc. in return they give as good a review as possible which is thus biased by default. Only if the game is total trash, or hasn't the backing of a strong publisher is it likely to get a fair score. To hide the obviousness of this, recently most major sites have been giving favorable reviews to various indie titles (World of Goo, Braid etc) which if you look carefully very conveniently don't disturb the segments of the market that is covered by major publishers. I'm not saying those games don't deserve the grades they get, I'm saying that they are an obvious ploy to retain an image of fairness whilst not questioning the equally obvious hypocrisy of major game reviews.

[Slowtrain]

I just simply enjoy the fact that Croshaw has enough of an identity as a reviewer that he can say what he want about the games he plays. I don't think I'd ever buy or not buy a game based on what he says about it though. Mostly I like listening to his reviews of games I've already played.

He doesn't say what he wants to, the fans don't "allow" him to like a game, it's a big no-no. If the fandumb manifests as mailbox spam or harassment from the boss, I've no idea.

 

 

Have you seen the way he treats his fans?

 

Its all part of the game, but I don't think he really cares. Its still a gimmick, but its a different gimmick then reprinting the publisher's press releases and calling them your "review".

[Oner]

I just simply enjoy the fact that Croshaw has enough of an identity as a reviewer that he can say what he want about the games he plays. I don't think I'd ever buy or not buy a game based on what he says about it though. Mostly I like listening to his reviews of games I've already played.

He doesn't say what he wants to, the fans don't "allow" him to like a game, it's a big no-no. If the fandumb manifests as mailbox spam or harassment from the boss, I've no idea.

Have you seen the way he treats his fans?

Yeah, the same fans who don't get the clue ("he means "I hate my fans!" in an affectionate way!") and pestered him to review Modern Warfare til he caved and did it.

[Enoch]

I like accurate and thoughtful. Someone who insults games just to please his boss (and you know the Escapist's biggest draw right now is Yatzee) is no more useful to me than reviewers who praise games just to please their boss.

 

 

A valid point.

 

For me, I don't really think of game reviews as being "useful" to me anymore. There was a time, back when CGW was in is heyday, that game reviewers actually did bring knowledge and thoughtfulness to the table. While reviews are always somewhat subjective there once was considerably more authority behind them. Nowadays, reviews seem mostly to be little more than extensions of the publishers PR campaign, especially for major titles.

 

I just simply enjoy the fact that Croshaw has enough of an identity as a reviewer that he can say what he want about the games he plays. I don't think I'd ever buy or not buy a game based on what he says about it though. Mostly I like listening to his reviews of games I've already played.

The best game reviews nowadays are on the more thoughtful gaming blogs. They often take a while post-releaase, and the focus is often more on criticism (in the sense of critical theory) rather than giving scores to individual games, but you can find some useful, intelligent discussion there.

 

I like Yahtzee's reviews of RPGs because they remind me of how awkward and stilted some of the genre conventions that I accept without much thought really are. An action-gamer's perspective on RPGs can be interesting, and sometimes thought-provoking. (E.g., this post and the ensuing comment thread has made me re-think my perspective on checkpoint v. free save systems)

[Oner]

(E.g., this post and the ensuing comment thread

Might as well ask the guy why he made that basic and egregious mistake to not save for an hour (or switch auto saves on?).

[Enoch]

(E.g., this post and the ensuing comment thread

Might as well ask the guy why he made that basic and egregious mistake to not save for an hour (or switch auto saves on?).

The point was made in the comments. And it got me thinking-- why should the player have to worry about hitting the quicksave button whenever anything important happens, anyway? Its a rote task that adds nothing to gameplay (and, in console UIs, often involves menu navigation), except that the game occasionally will punish you (rather severely) if you forget. We only consider it a "basic and egregious mistake" because past games have conditioned us to do it reflexively, not because it's a feature of the game's (or genre's) appeal. If a well-designed system of checkpoints or autosaves can take this concern out of the player's hands, the game will be better for it.

[Slowtrain]

The cool thing about Croshaw is that he has an identity as a reviwer, and a following. So he is no lober beholden to publishers. rather, ther opposite, publishers are beholden to him.

 

The world of gaming reviews needs more reviewers with strong identities and followings.

[Maria Caliban]

The point was made in the comments. And it got me thinking-- why should the player have to worry about hitting the quicksave button whenever anything important happens, anyway? Its a rote task that adds nothing to gameplay (and, in console UIs, often involves menu navigation), except that the game occasionally will punish you (rather severely) if you forget. We only consider it a "basic and egregious mistake" because past games have conditioned us to do it reflexively, not because it's a feature of the game's (or genre's) appeal. If a well-designed system of checkpoints or autosaves can take this concern out of the player's hands, the game will be better for it.

 

Checkpoints work best in linear games. Imagine you're running around the Bracillan Forest fighting werewolves and the game saves when you enter that zone. You're running along and the PC's group nears one of the revenant's grave, do you put an auto-save there?

 

The player might check out the grave stone or they might just miss it. Do you put an auto-save every time they get near it? There are four of them in the area and there's a bit of running back and forth, plus regular area transitions. A player might not enjoy continuously hitting an auto-save and having to wait becuasde they're nearing one of the grave stones again.

 

In areas like the mage tower, where it's one straight forward dungeon crawl, the autosaves BioWare has work fine.

[Walsingham]

(E.g., this post and the ensuing comment thread

Might as well ask the guy why he made that basic and egregious mistake to not save for an hour (or switch auto saves on?).

 

I just read his blog and my considered opinion is that his complaint boils down to him being a retard. He actually wants his hand held and be walked thorugh all the tactics and options. Well **** him, I says. **** him right in the ear. I'll be damned if I have to sit through fething tutotials just so some halfwit doesn't have to think. Those tutorials take time and money away from making proper content.

[Oner]

I just read his blog and my considered opinion is that his complaint boils down to him being a retard. He actually wants his hand held and be walked thorugh all the tactics and options. Well **** him, I says. **** him right in the ear. I'll be damned if I have to sit through fething tutotials just so some halfwit doesn't have to think. Those tutorials take time and money away from making proper content.

If you're referring to his complaint about the game not giving you enough skill details, he's right about that. You really can't tell what's useful and what's not just from the description.

[LostStraw]

That's pushing it. I liked The Witcher a lot, but his criticisms of the combat, the generic, "collect 10 of these", quests, and all the running around back and forth were very valid.

The complaint about the collection quests was not valid in the least. The quests were completely optional, easily avoidable and gave no significant rewards. There was no point to do them except to grind .. doing those quests was Yahtzee's own fault.

[Volourn]

"You really can't tell what's useful and what's not just from the description."

 

Yes. Yes, you can. Barring a couple. *shruG*

[Purkake]

That's pushing it. I liked The Witcher a lot, but his criticisms of the combat, the generic, "collect 10 of these", quests, and all the running around back and forth were very valid.

The complaint about the collection quests was not valid in the least. The quests were completely optional, easily avoidable and gave no significant rewards. There was no point to do them except to grind .. doing those quests was Yahtzee's own fault.

So you can't legitimately criticize the badly designed quests because they were optional? Good argument

[LostStraw]

That's pushing it. I liked The Witcher a lot, but his criticisms of the combat, the generic, "collect 10 of these", quests, and all the running around back and forth were very valid.

The complaint about the collection quests was not valid in the least. The quests were completely optional, easily avoidable and gave no significant rewards. There was no point to do them except to grind .. doing those quests was Yahtzee's own fault.

So you can't legitimately criticize the badly designed quests because they were optional? Good argument

Yes you can but that's not what Yahtzee did. I never did the collection quests myself because I thought they were rather boring. What Yahtzee did was to take a very small completely optional part of the game and say the entire game was a single player MMO experience because of it. I don't care when he says something sucks but when he spreads misinformation that makes me sad because for the most part I do enjoy his reviews.